ORDER : Surepalli Nanda, J. Heard Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: “…to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents in not granting Notional Promotion to the Petitioner in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) w.e.f. 11.07.2003 is illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional consequently direct the respondents to grant the Notional Promotion to the Petitioner in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) w.e.f. 11.07.2003, by duly taking into the consideration of Letter addressed by the 4 th respondent to the 2 nd respondent 4 th respondent to the 2 nd respondent vide C.No.184/E1/2011 dated 16.09.2011 in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.12741 of 2013 dated 01.12.2022 and re-fix his pay and other allowances attached to the post with all consequential benefits including monetary benefits and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner was appointed as Sub Inspector of Police (Civil) on 14.09.1978 and promoted to the rank of Inspector of Police on 30.08.1991. After serving for nearly 30 years, the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2008. However, during his service, a false complaint was filed by his wife, leading to departmental proceedings being initiated against him. The petitioner was denied promotion to Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) due to the said proceedings, despite being eligible and qualified for the promotion. The petitioner was acquitted of the charges in the year 2007, and the departmental proceedings were dropped in the year 2010. However, despite petitioner’s acquittal, the petitioner's promotion to DSP Post was not considered, and petitioner retired in the year 2008 without getting promotion. The petitioner submitted several representations to the respondent authorities, seeking notional promotion to DSP. However, no action had been taken on the same. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. PERUSED THE RECORD: 4. The petitioner submitted several representations to the respondent authorities, seeking notional promotion to DSP. However, no action had been taken on the same. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. PERUSED THE RECORD: 4. The letter of the respondent No.4 dated 16.09.2011 vide C.No.184/ E1/ 2011 addressed to the respondent No.2 herein is extracted hereunder: “With reference to the subject cited, it is to submit that, Sri G. Narsaiah, Inspector of Police, (Retd.) was appointed as S.I. of Police on 14-09- 1978 and promoted to the rank of Inspector of Police on 30-08-1991. While he working as Inspector of Police, Hasanparthy circle a complaint was filed against him on 08-11-2002 by his wife Smt. G. Swaroopa Rani at Hanamkonda P.S, stating that he developed illegal contacts with one Ireddy Bhagya Laxmi, W/o. Late Narsimha Reddy, resident of Hanamkonda, due to which his wife were strained and he harassed his wife mentally and physically and also beat her on several occasions. Later he purchased a House No.2-4- 1456, Gandhinagar, Ashoka Colony, Hanamkonda and married the said I. Bhagya Laxmi as second wife and kept her in the said house along with her 1 st wife and gave birth to 2 male children. On which, a case in Cr.No.374/02, U/s. 498-A, 494 IPC was registered at Hanamkonda P.S against Sri G.Narsaiah, Inspector. Subsequently as per Chief Office Proceedings Rc.No.1137/Appeal/02, dt 28-11-02 and this office Memo C.No. 38/C/02, dt: 29-11-02 he was placed under suspension vide Order C.No. 4632/A5/02, (D.O.No.3390/02), dt:30-11-2002 of Supdt. of Police, Warangal and released from suspension as per Chief Office Procdgs. No.1137/ Appeal-1/02, dt: 03-01-2003 without prejudice to the pending O.E. against him vide this office Memo C.No.38/C/02, dt: 7-01-2003. Further it is to submit that, Sri G. Narsaiah, Inspector of Police (Retired) filed an O.A.No.6453/05 in Honourable APAT Hyderabad requesting to direct the respondents to stay the further proceedings in the departmental enquiry till the completion of trial of criminal case in Cr.No.374/02, U/s 498(A), 494 IPC of Hanamkonda PS registered against him. The Honourable A.P.AT Hyderabad have issued interim orders dt: 08-11-05 and directed the respondents to maintain status quo with respect to the disciplinary proceedings as obtained that day, pending further orders. However a counter has been filed in the Honourable APAT Hyderabad for dismission the above O.A. vide this office Letter C.No.38/C/2003, dt: 23-11-2005. The Honourable A.P.AT Hyderabad have issued interim orders dt: 08-11-05 and directed the respondents to maintain status quo with respect to the disciplinary proceedings as obtained that day, pending further orders. However a counter has been filed in the Honourable APAT Hyderabad for dismission the above O.A. vide this office Letter C.No.38/C/2003, dt: 23-11-2005. Again the applicant has filed another petition vide O.A.No.8172/07 in APAT Hyderabad requested to stay all further proceedings initiated in Departmental Proceedings in C.No. 38/C/03, dt: 29-01-04. The Honourable APAT has issued interim relief order dt: 31-12-2007 directing the respondents to stay all further proceedings initiated departmental proceeding No. 38/C/2003, dt: 29-01-2004 on the file of the 1 st Respondent i..e. DIG of Police, W/R, Warangal. However, the Enquiry Officer i.e. Addl.S.P. (Admn.) Warangal was requested to get stay vacated against the Honorable APAT Order dt: 31- 12-07 in O.A.No.8172/07 and complete the O.E. against Sri G. Narsaiah, Inspector of Police, (Retired) vide this office Memorandum C.No.38/C/2003, dt: 22-2-2010. Meantime the Honourable APAT Hyderabad has passed an order dt: 28-04-2010 in O.A.No.8172/2007 as follows: "Had there been any acquittal whether it is a clean acquittal or acquittal on given benefit of doubt the decision would have been different. But in the present case the applicant was not discharged at the time of framing of the charge but subsequently the applicant was discharged by the Criminal Court for the offences under Section 494 and 498 (A). Therefore, after going through the entire record, I am of view that no cause of action survives on the same set of facts against the applicant regarding the cruelty and bigamy. Therefore, the charge memo dated 29-01-2004 is quashed. The OA is accordingly disposed off. No Costs.” In view of above Hon'ble APAT Order dt.28-04-2010 in OA No.8172/07, a clarification has been sought from Chief Office vide memo Rc.No.1916/Appel-1/2010, dated 06-07-2010 and as per the directions of the Chief Office and the G.P. for Home (S), High Court of A.P. Hyderabad vide letter No.OA.No.8172/07/Ser.I/PNR, dtd 24- 09-2010 opinioned that the sum and substance of the allegation is marrying for second time during the subsistence of first marriage. The individual was proceeded against U/s 494 & 498 (A) of IPC. He was acquitted of the charge on both counts by Competent Criminal Courts. The individual was proceeded against U/s 494 & 498 (A) of IPC. He was acquitted of the charge on both counts by Competent Criminal Courts. The subject of allegation in the Criminal Court and domestic enquiry is one and the same moreover is not relating to employment proper but incidental to his status as employer. In view of the principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.M.Tank Vs State of Gujarat reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446 the disciplinary action may not be continued as held by Hon'ble Tribunal. Therefore he opined that this is not a fit case for the State to prosecute the matter further. As such, in view implementation of APAT Order dt.28-04-2010 in O.A.No.8172/ 2007 filed by Sri G.Narsaiah, I nspector of Police (Retd), Warangal district and as per Chief Office directions, opinion of the Govt. Pleader for Services-I , High Court of AP, Hyderabad the further action against Sri G.Narsaiah, I nspector of Police, (Retired), Warangal district initiated vide the articles of charge memo in C.No.38/ C/ 2003, dated 29- 01-04 of DI G of Police, Warangal Range, Warangal is dropped vide this office Proc. No.564/ 2010, dt.05-10-2010. Further it is to submit that during the period from 2002 to 2008 when he was facing OE the promotion proposals for CIs fit to act as DSsP were sent to C.O. stating that he is facing OE and due to which his case was not recommended for promotion as DSP and his next juniors were promoted. But, in the meantime, Sri G.Narsaiah, Inspector of Police was retired from service on superannuation pension w.e.f.30-05-2008. Now the above Retired Inspector is requesting to issue promotion orders as DSP notionally on par with his juniors as per the G.O.Ms.No.424, Genl.Admn.Ser.C, Dept., dt.25- 05-1976 as the allegations leveled against him was completely exonerated. The relevant documents are enclosed for ready reference.” 5. The relevant portion of G.O.Ms.No.424 General Administration (Services.C) Department, dated 25.05.1976 is extracted hereunder: “Government have carefully considered the existing Instructions regarding consideration of the claims for promotion of officers who are facing enquiry in any departmental proceedings or before a Criminal Court or whose conduct is under investigation and against whom Departmental proceedings or Criminal Prosecution is about to be instituted, and have decided that the following procedure shall be followed in such cases. 2. 2. Officers who are facing enquiry, trial or Investigation can be categorised into the following groups based on the nature of the allegations/charges pending against them or about to be instituted. i) an officer with a clean record, the nature of charges/allegations against whom relate to minor lapses having no bearing on his integrity or efficiency, which even if held proved, would not stand in the way of his being promoted. ii) an officer whose record is such that he would not be promoted, irrespective of the allegations/charges under enquiry, trial or investigation; and (iii) an officer whose record is such that he would have been promoted had he not been facing enquiry, trial or investigation, In respect of charges which, if held proved, would be sufficient to supersede him. 3. The suitability of all officers eligible for promotion including those mentioned above should be assessed at the time of consideration of promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee or other authority, as the case may be. The Departmental Promotion Committee or other authority may consider promotion of officers coming under category (1) above and indicate the rank to be assigned to such officers in the promotion list, notwithstanding the enquiry, trail or investigation. Similarly, supersession may be recommended straightway in respect of officers coming under category (ii), on ground of their being unfit for promotion. In the case of officers coming under category (iii) the Departmental Promotion Committee or other authority should consider whether such an officer would have been recommended for promotion, if the officer had his conduct not been under enquiry trial or investigation, and make Its recommendations and the rank to be assigned to him in the promotion list. In such cases the Departmental Promotion Committee may make a specific recommendation that their promotion should be deferred until after the termination of the disciplinary proceedings or criminal prosecution. 4. In the event of there being an officer whose promotion has been recommended to be deferred, the vacancy that could have gone to the officer should be filled only on a purely temporary basis by the next person in the approved list of candidates for promotion. If the officer concerned is completely exonerated he should be promoted to the post filled on a temporary basis, restoring him his rightful place in the list of promoted officers with retrospective effect. 5. If the officer concerned is completely exonerated he should be promoted to the post filled on a temporary basis, restoring him his rightful place in the list of promoted officers with retrospective effect. 5. In cases where an officer is under suspension pending enquiry, Investigation or trial the provisional withholding of promotions would be justified and the instructions issued in G.O.Ms.No.790, General Administration (Ser-C), dated 29-9-1970 would continue to apply. 6. This order issues in supersession of the order issued In G.O.Ms.No.211, General Administration (Service-C) Department dated 31-3-1975.” 6. The relevant portion of the judgment dated 01.02.2022 in W.P.No.12741 of 2013 is extracted hereunder: “ In view of above, by following the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.1724 & 1915 of 2017, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 12.11.2018, the present Writ Petition also deserves to be disposed of on similar lines. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs.” 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner vide detailed representations dated 20.07.2022, addressed to the Director General of Police, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad i.e., respondent No.2 herein, requested to consider the petitioner’s case for promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the panel of C.I.’s fit to act as D.S.P. prepared for the year 2004, if not at least 2006-07, on par with petitioner’s juniors with retrospective effect, with all pension and service monetary benefits. The petitioner, again, vide letter dated 02.08.2022, reminded petitioner’s request for promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police on par with petitioner’s juniors. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that the petitioner’s request for notional Promotion to the Post of DSP (CIVIL) was indicated in the letter addressed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Warangal, to the Director General of Police, A.P., Hyderabad vide C.No.184/E1/2011 dated 16.09.2011 which duly referred to petitioner’s request to issue promotion orders as Deputy Superintendent of Police on par with petitioner’s juniors as per G.O.Ms.No.424 General Administration (Services.C) Department, dated 25.05.1976 since the petitioner had been exonerated from all the allegations leveled against him. However, the respondents herein had not taken any action to grant the notional promotion to the petitioner in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police with effect from 11.07.2003 by duly taking into consideration the letter addressed by respondent No.4 to the respondent No.2 vide C.No.184/E1/11 dated 16.09.2011. 9. Learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the writ petition could be disposed of directing the respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioner as put forth vide petitioner’s representations dated 23.03.2011, 20.07.2022 and 02.08.2022. 10. Taking into consideration: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of the respondents, c) The contents of the petitioner’s representations dated 23.03.2011, 20.07.2022 and 02.08.2022 addressed to the respondents herein, which admittedly had not been considered as on date. d) The Order of this Court dated 01.02.2022 passed in W.P.No.12741 of 2013, e) The contents of the letter addressed by the respondent No.4 to the respondent No.2 vide C.No.184/ E1/ 2011, dated 16.09.2011 (referred to and extracted above), f) G.O.Ms.No.424 General Administration (Services.C) Department dated 25.05.1976, referred to and extracted above and the instructions thereunder which provides for consideration of the claims for promotion of Officers who are facing enquiry in any departmental proceedings, The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representations dated 23.03.2011, 20.07.2022 and 02.08.2022 addressed to the respondents herein seeking grant of notional promotion to the petitioner in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police on par with his juniors as on 11.07.2003 as per G.O.Ms.No.424, General Administration (Services.C), Department dated 25.05.1976 (referred to and extracted above) and for refixation of petitioner’s pay and allowances and pass appropriate orders on said representations of the petitioner in accordance to law within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by duly taking into consideration the letter addressed by the respondent No.4 to the respondent No.2 vide C.No.184/ E1/ 2011, dated 16.09.2011 (referred to and extracted above) in terms of the judgment of the High Court dated 01.02.2022 passed in W.P.No.12741 of 2013 (referred to and extracted above) which clearly held that Rule 16(h) of the Rules of 1996, has to be strictly adhered to by the Respondents while effecting Promotions and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner herein. How ever, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed.